Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fluid–Structure Interaction Simulation of Aortic Valve Closure with Various Sinotubular Junction and Sinus Diameters

  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the effect of sinotubular junction and sinus diameters on aortic valve closure to prevent the regurgitation of blood from the aorta into the left ventricle during ventricular diastole. The 2-dimensional geometry of a base aortic valve was reconstructed using the geometric constraints and modeling dimensions suggested by literature as the reference model A (aortic annulus diameter (DAA) = 26, diameters of sinotubular junction (DSTJ) = 26, sinus diameter (DS) = 40), and then the DSTJ and DS were modified to create five geometric models named as B (DSTJ = 31.2, DS = 40), C (DSTJ = 20.8, DS = 40), D (DSTJ = 26, DS = 48), E (DSTJ = 26, DS = 32) and F (DSTJ = 31.2, DS = 48) with different dimensions. Fluid structure interaction method was employed to simulate the movement and mechanics of aortic root. The performance of the aortic root was quantified in terms of blood flow velocity through aortic valve, annulus diameter as well as leaflet contact pressure. For comparison among A, B and C, the differences of annulus diameter and leaflet contact pressure do not exceed 5% with DSTJ increased by 1.2 times and decreased by 0.8 times. For comparison among A, D and E, annulus diameter was increased by 6.92% and decreased by 7.87%, and leaflet contact pressure was increased by 8.99% and decreased by 12.14% with DS increased by 1.2 times and decreased by 0.8 times. For comparison between A and F, annulus diameter was increased by 5.10%, and leaflet contact pressure was increased by 13.54% both with DSTJ and DS increased by 1.1 times. The results of leaflet contact pressure presented for all models were consistent with those of aortic annulus diameters. For the Ross operation involves replacing the diseased aortic valve, aortic valve closure function can be affected by various sinotubular junction and sinus diameter. Compared with the sinus diameters, sinotubular junction diameters have less effect on the performance of aortic valve closure, when the diameter difference is within a range of 20%. So surgical planning might give sinus diameter more consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. David, T. E. Surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 10:375–386, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. David, T. E., A. Omran, G. Webb, H. Rakowski, S. Armstrong, and Z. Sun. Geometric mismatch of the aortic and pulmonary roots causes aortic insufficiency after the Ross procedure. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 112:1231–1239, 1996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dumont, K., J. Vierendeels, R. Kaminsky, G. Van Nooten, P. Verdonck, and D. Bluestein. Comparison of the hemodynamic and thrombogenic performance of two bileaflet mechanical heart valves using a CFD/FSI model. J. Biomech. Eng. 129:558–565, 2007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Griffith, B. E., X. Luo, D. M. McQueen, and C. S. Peskin. Simulating the fluid dynamics of natural and prosthetic heart valves using the immersed boundary method. Int. J. Appl. Mech. 1:137–177, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kemp, I., K. Dellimore, R. Rodriguez, C. Scheffer, D. Blaine, H. Weich, and A. Doubell. Experimental validation of the fluid–structure interaction simulation of a bioprosthetic aortic heart valve. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. 36:363–373, 2013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Labrosse, M. R., K. Lobo, and C. J. Beller. Structural analysis of the natural aortic valve in dynamics: from unpressurized to physiologically loaded. J. Biomech. 43:1916–1922, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Labrosse, M. R., M. Boodhwani, B. Sohmer, and C. J. Beller. Modeling leaflet correction techniques in aortic valve repair: a finite element study. J. Biomech. 44:2292–2298, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Labrosse, M. R., C. J. Beller, F. Robicsek, and M. J. Thubrikar. Geometric modeling of functional trileaflet aortic valves: development and clinical applications. J. Biomech. 39:2665–2672, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marom, G., R. Haj-Ali, E. Raanani, H. J. Schäfers, and M. Rosenfeld. A fluid–structure interaction model of the aortic valve with coaptation and compliant aortic root. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50:173–182, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marom, G., R. Halevi, R. Haj-Ali, M. Rosenfeld, H. J. Schäfers, and E. Raanani. Numerical model of the aortic root and valve: optimization of graft size and sinotubular junction to annulus ratio. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 146:1227–1231, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marom, G., R. Haj-Ali, M. Rosenfeld, H. J. Schäfers, and E. Raanani. Aortic root numeric model: annulus diameter prediction of effective height and coaptation in post-aortic valve repair. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 145:406–411, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maselli, D., R. De Paulis, R. Scaffa, L. Weltert, A. Bellisario, A. Salica, and A. Ricci. Sinotubular junction size affects aortic root geometry and aortic valve function in the aortic valve reimplantation procedure: an in vitro study using the Valsalva graft. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 84:1214–1218, 2007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mokhles, M. M., H. Körtke, U. Stierle, O. Wagner, E. I. Charitos, A. J. Bogers, and J. J. Takkenberg. Survival comparison of the ross procedure and mechanical valve replacement with optimal self-management anticoagulation therapy propensity-matched cohort study. Circulation 123:31–38, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prodromo, J., G. D’Ancona, A. Amaducci, and M. Pilato. Aortic valve repair for aortic insufficiency: a review. J. Cardiothor. Vasc. Anest. 26:923–932, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Soncini, M., E. Votta, S. Zinicchino, V. Burrone, A. Mangini, M. Lemma, and A. Redaelli. Aortic root performance after valve sparing procedure: a comparative finite element analysis. Med. Eng. Phys. 31:234–243, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shadden, S. C., M. Astorino, and J. F. Gerbeau. Computational analysis of an aortic valve jet with Lagrangian coherent structures. Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 20:017512, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Slater, M., I. Shen, K. Welke, C. Komanapalli, and R. Ungerleider. Modification to the Ross procedure to prevent autograft dilatation. Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. Pediatr. Cardiac Surg. Annu. 8:181–184, 2005.

  18. Takkenberg, J. J., L. M. Klieverik, P. H. Schoof, R. J. van Suylen, van L. A. Herwerden, P. E. Zondervan, and A. J. Bogers. The Ross procedure a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 119:222–228, 2009.

  19. Takkenberg, J. J., L. A. Van Herwerden, T. W. Galema, J. A. Bekkers, V. E. Kleyburg-Linkers, M. J. Eijkemans, and A. J. Bogers. Serial echocardiographic assessment of neo-aortic regurgitation and root dimensions after the modified Ross procedure. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15:100–106, 2006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Uddin, A., J. D. Thomson, S. Plein, and J. P. Greenwood. Late dynamic right ventricular outflow obstruction after the Ross procedure for bicuspid aortic valve disease. Circulation 125:e1043–e1046, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yacoub, M. H., L. M. Klieverik, G. Melina, S. E. Edwards, P. Sarathchandra, A. J. Bogers, and J. J. Takkenberg. An evaluation of the Ross operation in adults. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15:531–539, 2006.

  22. Zhu, D., and Q. Zhao. Dynamic normal aortic root diameters: implications for aortic root reconstruction. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 91:485–489, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11472023, 81270297).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Life Science and Bio-Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

    Youlian Pan & Aike Qiao

  2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China

    Nianguo Dong

Authors
  1. Youlian Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aike Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nianguo Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aike Qiao.

Additional information

Associate Editor Umberto Morbiducci oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pan, Y., Qiao, A. & Dong, N. Fluid–Structure Interaction Simulation of Aortic Valve Closure with Various Sinotubular Junction and Sinus Diameters. Ann Biomed Eng 43, 1363–1369 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-014-1120-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-014-1120-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation